Posted on 09/26/2014 10:34:02 AM PDT by rktman
The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but it does not limit the amount of ammunition a person can own.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj1015.com ...
Somewhere around
I almost NEVER ‘FReep’ polls anymore, but I just HAD to jump in and vote on this one. (I hate NJ and their gun laws - and lard ass 0bama loving idiot/naive governor)
Grammatical nazi correction required here:
The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, AND it does not limit the amount of ammunition a person can own.
End of discussion: no restrictions, no limits, no polling needed.
At LEAST 6,000 rounds of EVERY Caliber you own(for Me(38 Special, .357 Magnum, 7.62X39m 30-06 AND last BUT NOT Least .45 ACP))!
Of course there needs to be a limit on the amount of ammunition you can have!
The limit would naturally be the amount of ammunition that can be produced from the amount of material that is available (either on earth or on any other astronomical bodies within reach of our current technology) for human use and production of ammunition, which would then naturally be further limited by the amount of such ammunition that you can afford to buy (or to manufacture yourself).
It should be crime to “Not” have more than God himself...
Judging from the responses on this thread, it appears we have solved the puzzle of where all the .22 LR ammo has been going.
Gabby can’t use a keyboard anymore.
That response was scratched out by her chicken
If you’re on food stamps and public housing assistance, right - you shouldn’t be buying anything outside of your basic needs.
Unfortunately, the welfare crowd considers themselves to be entitled to having their basic needs taken care of SO THAT they can spend on “bling”.
No limit whatsoever. If you can afford it and want it so be it. It’s called freedom.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t “give” anything.
WRONG. Bearing arms is the right of every human being
but it does not limit the amount of ammunition a person can own.
What an ODD transition!
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Why should there be a limit? Because it would make anti-freedom gun grabbers feel safer knowing that I had only X rounds on hand? 50 rounds could be used to kill 50 people but a shooter can burn through that in just a few minutes of range time. So I would guess that the gun grabber’s optimum number of rounds that they would “allow” gun owners to have is zero.
This is the era of proportional warfare, according to the leftists. You can only have ammo in proportion to the need. Given that the potential tyrannists have bought millions of rounds with nary a peep from the enemedia and no limit on potential tyrannists to purchase, that should be the standard for theoretical opponents of tyranny.
The BOR doesn’t “give rights”. It merely tells the government what is NOT allowed to do.
Should there be a limit on the amount of free political speech you are permitted to say?
Should there be a limit on how much time you are allowed to exercise your faith and religion?
Should there be a limit on the private use of your home if the government decides it needs to use it to house… ‘migrants’ or government employees?
Should there be a limit on your ability to be free of searches and seizures in this time of ‘insecurity’? I mean we have to be safe from…. potential right wing domestic terrorists.
Should there be a limit on due process - I mean, we are in a crisis and the government just doesn’t have the time and money to afford everyone their day in court. Those resources must be made available for Muslim freedom fighters unjustly imprisoned in Gitmo.
We should limit citizens from jury trials also. I mean, if a cop or government agent makes a charge, then that should be enough to convict.
It’s a waste of manpower and time anyway because we all know if you are charged, you are guilty until proven innocent, unless you are black - whereby because of slavery - they are automatically presumed innocent because we are racists.
We should also limit your right to be free from the government’s ability to imprison those that disagree with policies like Climate Change and other planet-saving agendas. Your existence threatens the planet after all.
We also need to limit any rights that are not granted by government, and that includes making sure States follow all government dictates because individual states, like individual citizens cannot be trusted with anything unless the government says it is okay.
There, I think I cited just about everything that should snowball into an agenda once it is decided that limiting your right to ammo is a precedent that has Constitution legal status.
We have a WINNER!!!!
Tracking now! :>} Ammo equality and redistribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.